This study was conducted with the general purpose of describing and explaining the disagreementsrnand conflicts associated with the distribution of common grazing land in Arbawash Dingira Kebele.rnIt particularly focused on finding out the purpose and criteria of distributing the common grazingrnland; the claimant groups, their bases of claim, resources and mechanisms of interest realization; thernlivelihood effect of, and the preference and attitude to the distributed common grazing land; and thernvarious measures taken and their consequences in mediating the different interest groups.rnIn order to answer all the specific objectives, research designs which have both qualitative andrnquantitative nature were used. Hence, particular methods of research, i.e. focus group discussion,rnkey informant and in-depth interview, documentary research and survey were used in the study so asrnto meet the specific objectives. In implementing the survey method, a questionnaire was developedrnand administered to a total sample of 121 household heads who were selected from the two Gotts,rnKattal and Seblan, which are respectively found in Arbawash Mariam and Arbawash Michael Nius-rnKebeles.rnAs the findings indicate, from the early (6 hectares of land was distributed in 1999/2000 E.C.) andrnlate (21 hectares of land was distributed in 2003E.C1.) phases of distribution of the disputed commonrngrazing land it was found that defending some groups and individuals who were plowing the commonrngrazing land and getting benefit for rural households in the name of the church and for youth werernthe major purposes or reasons for distribution with various criteria. Though there was a situationrnwhere access was allowed for all, regardless of any criteria before, during and after the first time ofrndistribution, later criteria became more formalized. In the early phase of the distribution, thernclaimant groups were the rural households of the three Nius-Kebeles. Later, however, the claimantrngroups were polarized into the rural households of the two Nius-Kebeles, Arbawash Mariam andrnArbawash Michael with a various but contradictory bases of claim, mechanism and interestrnrealization. The income obtained from the land, livelihood ratings, the preferences and attitudes ofrnrespondents to the distributed grazing land all indicate that most of the rural households in the twornNius-kebels seemed unsatisfied on the livelihood effect made by the distributed grazing land forrnwhich they have been in conflict. In solving the disagreements and conflicts on the different phases ofrnthe distribution, both legal and traditional mechanisms of conflict management had beenrnimplemented. However, the traditional mechanism of conflict management was more successful